On Feb 14, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
Businesses both large and small realize health care in other
countries is subsidizing their competition. Thus Detroit was first
in line to lobby for health care.
When? Not after WW II, when this whole system was put into place.
Walter Reuther wanted health care plans for workers that were
portable, and was opposed by the Big Three. Yes, Detroit finally woke
up to the idea that in other countries, public health is considered a
public good (which is different, I think you'll agree, from
"subsidies") and thus public health is worth public support.
Doctors too are lobbying against the absurd malpractice litigation
which has become a barrier to practice.
Malpractice suits and their costs are, I'm told, in the single-digits
of the percentages of healthcare costs. If you look at Atul Gawande's
article in the New Yorker a few months back, where he compares two
adjacent counties, one which has a malpractice cap, and one that
doesn't, the cap hardly matters in terms of healthcare costs. At
Christmas (in Santa Fe) I heard a young doc give a talk and he said:
don't diss malpractice. It's all that stands between you and really
horrible care. Well, he may be exaggerating, but that's what he said.
I happen to be sitting right now on a jury hearing a malpractice case
in New York City. I can't tell you about it, of course, except to say
the plaintiff suffered (and suffers still) horribly, but it isn't at
all clear right now whose fault, if any, it was.
There are a few steps that could be made that would get little
resistance from the corporate devils you paint. For example, why
not require people to pay for a reasonable insurance plan? We are
required to do so for car insurance. Our current practice drives
folks to use the emergency room for their doctor at a huge and silly
additional costs.
So: 1) Require universal health care insurance. But 2) Remove
preconditions. See the yin/yang? Insurance companies have already
said that pair would work for them, as have the AMA/doctors. And
yes, 3) Subsidize those who cannot afford the base rate. And 4)
limit malpractice litigation. It is claimed that just these 4 steps
would reduce the cost of current health care and increase businesses
competitiveness significantly. And properly put in place the right
market counter forces to the evil corporations.
Suits me.
We ourselves need to change. How many of us spend as much on
medical care as we do our cars? In my calculations, cars and their
care still cost more. Compare auto leasing costs for two cars for
the standard family and insurance for same and they're surprisingly
close. Add upkeep of the car and they are way ahead.
Now THAT's a telling and discouraging comparison. Of course we've
built an infrastructure in the U.S. which, for the most part, requires
a car for most adults. But this is how it is, and this we need to use
as a starting point.
Our own family's medical insurance costs dwarf our car costs, but
that's because our cars sit in a garage seven months of the year in
Santa Fe, and we have excellent (well--not compared to Germany,
Jochen) public transportation the seven months we're in New York City.
I don't flinch at taxi fares when I know how much my friends are
paying for their cars.
So it's complicated, but not hopeless.
On Feb 14, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Pamela,
I think the healthcare issue goes way beyond just the usual
corporate profit protection, pay for play political game. Look at
how polarized the nation has become over just this issue alone.
Look at how many people don't believe that the healthcare issue is
really about healthcare insurance industry profit protection.
We truly are a nation of idiots. We deserve Rush Limbaugh, Sarah
Palin, and Pat Robertson.
Model that, if you like. The agents in the individual based
simulation won't need much sophistication.
--Doug
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Pamela McCorduck <[email protected]>
wrote:
When Kennedy envisioned going to the moon, no lobby existed to
fight ferociously for the sole right to take the profits from going
to the moon, and the sole right to decide who gets to go.
If you read the not-very-deep subtext in this fight, you will see
that it's not about giving better healthcare to Americans (which we
desperately need) but about protecting the enormous profits of the
healthcare insurance industry. It's dressed up in "right to
choose," and "privacy between doctor and patient," and "keep the
government out of medical care," but it's really about profit
protection. From several different and reliable sources (one of
them a congressional candidate) I have heard that since early last
summer, the insurance and pharmaceuticals industries have been
spending over $1 million per day on lobbying. It continues. You can
do the arithmetic.
The media regularly reports on how much better, cheaper, and more
effective medical plans are all around the developed world. It
doesn't penetrate $1 million-plus per day.
On Feb 13, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
Where does all this whining about health care
come from? Everyone in Germany has a health
insurance, it is obligatory. There is general
agreement here that the European (and esp.
the German) health care system is better
and more social than the one in the US.
The USA obviously needs a better health care
system. Where is the American optimism and
the "i believe we can do it" spirit? I've heard
that optimism and positive thinking is a typical
American attitude.
America is lacking a vision, something like
Kennedy's vision to bring a man to the moon
and back. Military and NASA won't do it
this time. A vision or a common dream which
would foster technological innovation. Schmidt
mentioned "renewable energy" and green
technology. What about a clean L.A. with
fresh air? A large scale scientific initiative
to create the first AI would be another one.
America would have the resources to do it, it
has the companies with the largest data centers.
It should be proud of Google, Microsoft,
Amazon, and Apple. It is difficult to understand
why it disputes about health care so long.
-J.
----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Critchlow
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sources of Innovation
[...] We're too busy defending ourselves from hedge fund vampires
and health care ghouls to worry about growth. Say what you will
about the undead, they steal their profits fair and square and
invest them in the rule of law.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
